I'm sorry assassin, but I haven't seen anything in this thread you have said that was based in reality. Your initial statements were just flat out wrong, and trying to argue from incorrect statements just doesn't work.

1. When goods are produced many of them are destroyed because they would drive down the price of goods. This means that companies run at a loss, so they have to constantly expand to new areas of production, or create artificial demand to justify increased supply (yes now its supply= demand)

2. Capitalism seeks infinite growth on a finite planet, imposible, someday t will have to die.

3. Increase mechanization to better exploit resources will destory the ability for products to be bought.

1. Why would they just not produce less to start with, or sell higher volume at lower price? Companies do not want to destroy goods that they spent money to create.

How does this mean they run at a loss? Companies that run at a loss go out of business. Only the government can truly operate at a loss since they can cheat the system by making more money for themselves to keep operating.

How could a company create artificial demand? Governments can create artificial demand by messing with markets, but all a company can do is provide goods and services if someone is willing to make an exchange with them.

Companies do not have to justify increased supply. They have to deal with the consequences of the market supply and demand. If there is too much supply, they simply produce less, as it does no one any good to stockpile warehouses full of saddles when everyone wants a car.

2. Capitalism seeks to produce profit, not infinite growth. If that means they make 10 widgets a year because that is where they make the most profit, that is all they will make. If it means they do something unprofitable like donating to feed the poor to increase the company image to make overall more profit, they will do that too. They are not the cookie monster.

3. I am not sure I can even make sense of this one in order to refute it. Do you mean that mechanization puts people out of jobs? This one is as old as technology itself. It actually has quite a different effect.

Increased technology means one person can produce more. Yeah, I don't need to hire an expensive cobbler to make my shoes anymore, but that also means I have more money to perhaps buy another pair of shoes, or something else to improve my life. The cobbler can likely turn his leather-working skills to making something else, or pursue another career entirely. Maybe his shoes are so amazing and better than factory shoes that he suddenly has less competition and can charge a small fortune for a now rare skill and unique product.

Obviously not everyone wants to change careers, or this argument would not exist. However, due to the fact that everyone is able to save money on shoes, they have more to spend on other goods and services. New goods and services are also being created, and will require a workforce as well.

Do not mistake the rearranging of assets (money, labor, equipment) to be a loss or destruction of wealth and purchasing power.

1. When goods are produced many of them are destroyed because they would drive down the price of goods. This means that companies run at a loss, so they have to constantly expand to new areas of production, or create artificial demand to justify increased supply (yes now its supply= demand)

What are you talking about? Companies destroy their own goods?

And you can't just rewrite the most basic law of economics because you feel like it. Supply does not equal demand in theory or reality. It could at equilibrium, but that is more hypothetical than actual.

Quote

2. Capitalism seeks infinite growth on a finite planet, imposible, someday t will have to die.

This is why we have something called prices, for economic calculation.

Wealth can be created infinitely. That is why today, with 6 billion people in the world, less and less people are starving. The standard of living for everyone in the world has increased.

companies create demand via advertisements, often using the same tactics used by the military in psyops. When a company can bombard you with one way messages, your being brainwashed, and its making demand.

How would you know it existed if they didn't tell you about it? It is your choice to watch the ads. It is your choice if you buy the product or not. They are not creating demand, you do that by choosing to voluntarily make a mutually beneficial exchange with them.

Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

If you buy everything you ever see ads for, I have some stuff I want to sell to you.

How would you know it existed if they didn't tell you about it? It is your choice to watch the ads. It is your choice if you buy the product or not. They are not creating demand, you do that by choosing to voluntarily make a mutually beneficial exchange with them.

Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

If you buy everything you ever see ads for, I have some stuff I want to sell to you.

Theirs a difference between adds hear and their and every possible place blasting them at you. What about the fact that advertisers use the same tactics used in psyop by the military, making it impossible to defend without a PHD in psychology.

Theirs a difference between adds hear and their and every possible place blasting them at you. There's a difference between hearing ads and having them blasted at you. What about the fact that advertisers use the same tactics used in psyop psyops by the military, making it impossible to defend without a PHD in psychology.

I fixed that first string that I will generously call a sentence. Let me explain the changes I made. First their is the possessive form of they so you used the wrong word, it is an easy mistake to make since there, their, and they're sound the same. There is an adverb, it is there as opposed to here, lastly they're is a contraction of the words they and are. Second adds is the third person conjugation of the verb to add, id est "He adds x+y", while ad is short for advertisement, again you used the wrong word, an understandable mistake since the words sound identical. The last thing that I did was to create an actual coherent sentence expressing what I think you were trying to say. But I'm not a mind reader so I could be wrong.

The reason

Quote

psyop

needs to be pluralized is that the military engages in multiple psychological operations.

Now on to the refutation.

The purpose of an advertisement is to get people to notice something, one way to do that is to blast them at you. The point is there is not a an ethical difference between an ad that is run once and one that is ran a thousand times. There may be a difference in the effectiveness of the ads, but I think your sentence was meant to imply an ethical difference.

Next you said

Quote

What about the fact that advertisers use the same tactics used in psyop by the military, making it impossible to defend without a PHD in psychology.

Yes advertisers use the same tactics as military psyops, because they are in fact the same thing in different fields. So what? Who cares? The implication of the first part of your sentence is that the military is bad, and because it is bad everything it has used or created is bad. Which is a blatant falsehood. The internet was developed for military use and is still used by the military today does this mean that the internet is bad? No it does not. The second part of this sentence is

Quote

making it impossible to defend without a PHD in psychology

I find this claim to be dubious at best and is probably utter nonsense. I for example do not have a Ph.D in psychology and yet I am somehow able to resist buying items that I see ads for yet, have no desire for. Furthermore the claim that the military is infallible is just bullshit plain and simple. The idea that anyone without a Ph.D cannot resist psyops is just plain naive and stupid and is probably a logical fallacy. If this were the case the Afghan resistance movement would not have the support base that it does.

So soviet propaganda on every building was OK because you could look away? And don't say coercive and noncoercive, because advertisement is coercion.

Your box of fail is growing quite nicely. Let's add this nonsense to the garbage heap.

There is nothing inherently wrong with propaganda. Propaganda is communication designed to alter the attitude of someone in some way. Whether it be the idea that "Mother Russia, and Stalin are Great" or "Our vacuum is the best". One must examine everything one hears to determine it's validity. You are responsible for yourself, if are not capable of logically deducing that pigs can't fly because you received a pamphlet saying they can, that only speaks to how poor your critical thinking skills are.

Quote

because advertisement is coercion

I would ask how, but I know you are going to copy and paste some more bullshit, so let's save a step and I'll just say. BULLSHIT. This is an unsubstantiated assertion the burden of proof is on you.

Free markets would abolish property rights, without a state you can't have private property.

Since having markets is defined by private property, you are stating a non-sequiter.

States violate private property.

I meant Lockean property rights, instead it would be occupancy and use, so if I live in my house its mine, but I can't make money speculating on land.

Being able to speculate on land is important for using it efficiently. If we can't buy and hold, then we have an incentive to go and put up a shanty house, pay someone to live there, and wait until we have a more productive use for it. That's all dead-weight loss. Being able to own it and allow it to sit dormant prevents wasteful land grabs. Friedman's done some research on the Homestead Act. People would just go and farm it at a LOSS for YEARS, hoping the price would go up. People will find a way to speculate on it, so you might as well take away the incentive to waste resources at the same time.

Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."-MAM